Queensland Supreme Court: Refuses Further Amendments in Commercial Dispute

Court finds proposed changes would widen litigation and likely cause further delay The Supreme Court of Queensland has refused leave for a plaintiff to make substantial further amendments to its statement of claim in long-running commercial litigation, finding the changes would widen the dispute and likely cause further delay. In DGR Global Ltd v P.T. Limited as trustee of the Armour Energy Security Trust [2026] QSC 226, the court allowed amendments that were not opposed but dismissed the application in all other respects. The proceeding began in December 2023 after Armour Energy Limited entered receivership and voluntary administration. The plaintiff, DGR Global, Armour Energy’s largest shareholder and creditor, later amended its case to add claims of misleading or deceptive conduct. The litigation has since involved multiple amendment applications and significant interlocutory disputes. A two-week trial scheduled for December 2024 was adjourned to April 2025, while the four-week April trial was later vacated after the court stayed the proceeding. The latest application, filed in June 2026, was the plaintiff’s fourth application for leave to amend its statement of claim. The proposed changes included expanding an existing counterfactual underpinning its misleading and deceptive conduct claim into four alternative “pathways”. Those pathways included allegations that the energy company could have made a required payment with financial assistance from the plaintiff, sought an injunction to prevent the acquisition of notes, persuaded certain defendants not to pursue enforcement action, or obtained an injunction preventing enforcement. The court found the expansion represented a significant change to the pleading and would introduce new lines of inquiry involving different defendants. Other proposed amendments sought to add allegations about the value of the energy company’s shares and the development and optimisation of assets. The court noted the proposed pleading contained 12 references to expert evidence that was still to be obtained, with further particulars or amendments anticipated after disclosure, non-party disclosure, or expert evidence. The court said the proposed amendments suggested the pleading remained a “work-in-progress” and described the widening scope as the litigation equivalent of “mission creep”. In exercising the discretion under r. 375 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the court applied the considerations identified in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27. The court found the amendments came late, the plaintiff had previously had an opportunity to amend, and its explanation for the delay was not particularly satisfactory. It also found the changes would likely delay the proceedings, create further areas of dispute, and impose strain and inconvenience on those involved. The court therefore refused leave for the opposed amendments while permitting those to which no objection had been made. Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and we’ll keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer.